These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33625196)

  • 21. Effects of vowel context on the recognition of initial and medial consonants by cochlear implant users.
    Donaldson GS; Kreft HA
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):658-77. PubMed ID: 17086077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
    Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Effects of electrode location and spacing on phoneme recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant.
    Fu QJ; Shannon RV
    Ear Hear; 1999 Aug; 20(4):321-31. PubMed ID: 10466568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Acceptance and Benefits of Electro-Acoustic Stimulation for Conventional-Length Electrode Arrays.
    Spitzer ER; Waltzman SB; Landsberger DM; Friedmann DR
    Audiol Neurootol; 2021; 26(1):17-26. PubMed ID: 32721977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Speech Perception With Combined Electric-Acoustic Stimulation: A Simulation and Model Comparison.
    Rader T; Adel Y; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(6):e314-25. PubMed ID: 25989069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Trimodal speech perception: how residual acoustic hearing supplements cochlear-implant consonant recognition in the presence of visual cues.
    Sheffield BM; Schuchman G; Bernstein JG
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(3):e99-112. PubMed ID: 25514796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Influence of Age at Cochlear Implantation and Frequency-to-Place Mismatch on Early Speech Recognition in Adults.
    Canfarotta MW; O'Connell BP; Buss E; Pillsbury HC; Brown KD; Dillon MT
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2020 Jun; 162(6):926-932. PubMed ID: 32178574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Timbre and speech perception in bimodal and bilateral cochlear-implant listeners.
    Kong YY; Mullangi A; Marozeau J
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(5):645-59. PubMed ID: 22677814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Outcomes in Children.
    Park LR; Teagle HFB; Gagnon E; Woodard J; Brown KD
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(4):849-857. PubMed ID: 30252685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Synchrotron Radiation-Based Reconstruction of the Human Spiral Ganglion: Implications for Cochlear Implantation.
    Li H; Schart-Morén N; Rohani SA; Ladak HM; Rask-Andersen H; Agrawal S
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(1):173-181. PubMed ID: 31008733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Electro-acoustic pitch matching experiments in patients with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant: Is there a need for adjustment of the default frequency allocation tables?
    Peters JPM; Bennink E; Grolman W; van Zanten GA
    Hear Res; 2016 Dec; 342():124-133. PubMed ID: 27789255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Effect of ECAP-based choice of stimulation rate on speech-perception performance.
    Bournique JL; Hughes ML; Baudhuin JL; Goehring JL
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(4):437-46. PubMed ID: 23303197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Cochlear Implantation and Electric Acoustic Stimulation in Children With TMPRSS3 Genetic Mutation.
    Holder JT; Morrel W; Rivas A; Labadie RF; Gifford RH
    Otol Neurotol; 2021 Mar; 42(3):396-401. PubMed ID: 33555745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Frequency-place compression and expansion in cochlear implant listeners.
    Başkent D; Shannon RV
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Nov; 116(5):3130-40. PubMed ID: 15603158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Insertion Depth and Cochlear Implant Speech Recognition Outcomes: A Comparative Study of 28- and 31.5-mm Lateral Wall Arrays.
    Canfarotta MW; Dillon MT; Brown KD; Pillsbury HC; Dedmon MM; O'Connell BP
    Otol Neurotol; 2022 Feb; 43(2):183-189. PubMed ID: 34772886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effects of hearing aid settings for electric-acoustic stimulation.
    Dillon MT; Buss E; Pillsbury HC; Adunka OF; Buchman CA; Adunka MC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Feb; 25(2):133-40. PubMed ID: 24828214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.
    Gifford RH; Stecker GC
    Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107929. PubMed ID: 32182551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Bilateral electric acoustic stimulation: a comparison of partial and deep cochlear electrode insertion. A longitudinal case study.
    Kleine Punte A; Vermeire K; Van de Heyning P
    Adv Otorhinolaryngol; 2010; 67():144-152. PubMed ID: 19955731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation With Hearing Preservation: Effect of Cochlear Implant Low-Frequency Cutoff on Speech Understanding and Perceived Listening Difficulty.
    Gifford RH; Davis TJ; Sunderhaus LW; Menapace C; Buck B; Crosson J; O'Neill L; Beiter A; Segel P
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):539-553. PubMed ID: 28301392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.